Jamie Cambria v. Essex North Shore Agricultural & Technical School (SPR 20252798)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 30, 2025 SPR25/2798 Heidi T. Riccio, Ed.D Superintendent-Director Essex North Shore Agricultural and Technical School 565 Maple Street Danvers, MA 01923 Dear Dr. Riccio: On September 24, 2025, this office received the petitions of Lyndsey Davis, Esq., of Norris, Murray & Peloquin, LLC, on behalf of the Essex North Shore Agricultural and Technical School (School/District) seeking an extension of time to produce records and requesting permission to assess fees for time spent segregating and redacting responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, it is my understanding that the School furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Jamie Cambria. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On September 17, 2025, Jamie Cambria requested, “all sent and received emails [by …@essextech.net] from October 2024 until present day.” Petition for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Heidi T. Riccio, Ed.D SPR25/2798 Page 2 September 30, 2025 (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the School requests an extension of 30 business days and provides the following information in support of its request: In order to respond to the request, the District must segregate and review 27,355 emails to determine whether any record/portion of a record is exempt from disclosure. The task of finding, segregating, reviewing and redacting these records cannot reasonably be completed within the statutory timeframe. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the capacity of the School to produce the records without an extension, the School has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The School is granted an extension of 30 business days. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial

Heidi T. Riccio, Ed.D SPR25/2798 Page 3 September 30, 2025 purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (two) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the School seeks permission to assess fees for time spent segregating and redacting responsive records and provides the following in support of its request: In order to segregate and redact any responsive records, the District must review 27,355 records to determine whether any record/portion of a record is exempt from disclosure. The lowest compensated employee who can perform this work is paid more than $25/hour. The [District] requests to charge the requestor $25/hour for any such work over two hours.

Heidi T. Riccio, Ed.D SPR25/2798 Page 4 September 30, 2025 Subsequently, in a correspondence to Jamie Cambria and this office on September 30, 2025, the School states that in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, the School requests permission to charge for segregation and redaction pursuant to Exemptions (c), (d) and (o). The School provides the following in support of its request: Exemption (c) – To protect against the unwarranted invasion of personal privacy in connection with personnel records, or communications that implicate privacy interests. Exemption (d) – To withhold inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters containing advisory opinions, recommendations, or deliberations relating to policy-making matters, which are part of an ongoing deliberative process. Exemption (o) – To prevent disclosure of personal contact information, including home addresses and personal email addresses. Other applicable exemptions – To the extent responsive emails contain material falling within other statutory exemptions, such content will be reviewed and redacted as required. Because the request seeks a year of email correspondence, it is reasonably anticipated that the responsive records will contain communications implicating each of the exemptions identified above. Careful review is therefore necessary to ensure compliance with both the disclosure obligations under the Public Records Law and the statutory protections afforded to exempt information. The District’s fee petition represents the time required for this review and redaction process. Based on the information provided in its fee petition, I find the School has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without segregation or redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the School may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the School has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally as described above, I find that to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the School may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). I encourage Jamie Cambria and the School to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate producing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii).

Heidi T. Riccio, Ed.D SPR25/2798 Page 5 September 30, 2025 Please note, Jamie Cambria has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(c), 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jamie Cambria Lyndsey Davis, Esq.